Attentional Momentum Research Articles

Are attentional momentum and representational momentum related?

ABSTRACT In attentional momentum, detection of a target further ahead in the direction of an ongoing attention shift is faster than detection of a target an equal distance in an orthogonal direction. In representational momentum, memory for the location of a previously viewed target is displaced in the direction of target motion. Hubbard [Hubbard, T. L. (2014). Forms of momentum across space: Representational, operational, and attentional. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(6), 1371–1403; Hubbard, T. L. (2015). The varieties of momentum-like experience. Psychological Bulletin, 141(6), 1081–1119] hypothesized that attentional momentum and representational momentum might be related or reflect the same mechanism or similar mechanisms. Two experiments collected measures of attentional momentum and representational momentum. In Experiment 1, attentional momentum based on differences between detecting targets opposite or orthogonal to a cued location was not correlated with representational momentum based on M displacement for the final location of a target. In Experiment 2, attentional momentum based on facilitation in detecting a gap on a probe presented in front of the final target location was not correlated with representational momentum based on a weighted mean of the probabilities of a same response in probe judgments of the final target location. Implications of the findings for the relationship of attentional momentum and representational momentum, and for theories of momentum-like effects in general, are considered.

Spatial biases in inhibition of return

ABSTRACT Inhibition of return (IOR) describes the phenomenon that reaction times (RT) to a target which appears at a previously cued location are slowed down. Spalek and Hammad ([2004]. Supporting the attentional momentum view of IOR: Is attention biased to go right? Perception & Psychophysics, 66(2), 219–233. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194874) reported that IOR effects were smaller at a lower or right location, compared to an upper or left location. In contrast, Snyder and Schmidt ([2014]. No evidence for directional biases in inhibition of return. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(2), 432–435. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0511-3) argued that IOR is unaffected by spatial biases and that any observed differences are better explained by general reaction time differences depending on the target’s location. In two experiments (both N = 31), we aimed to test both diverging predictions by presenting cue and target at four locations along the vertical and horizontal axis. Controlling for a main effect of RTs at different target locations, we still observed a spatial bias on IOR, in that the effect was smaller at the lower than the upper target location. We also found a comparable spatial bias on the IOR-related phenomenon of early facilitation (EF). The results suggest that the magnitude and occurrence of both IOR and EF are affected by spatial configurations. Similarities with spatial biases on other visual phenomena as well as theoretical implications are discussed.

Pre-saccadic attention spreads to stimuli forming a perceptual group with the saccade target

The pre-saccadic attention shift—a rapid increase in visual sensitivity at the target—is an inevitable precursor of saccadic eye movements. Saccade targets are often parts of the objects that are of interest to the active observer. Although the link between saccades and covert attention shifts is well established, it remains unclear if pre-saccadic attention selects the location of the eye movement target or rather the entire object that occupies this location. Indeed, several neurophysiological studies suggest that attentional modulations of neural activity in visual cortex spreads across parts of objects (e.g., elements grouped by Gestalt principles) that contain the target location of a saccade. To understand the nature of pre-saccadic attentional selection, we examined how visual sensitivity, measured in a challenging orientation discrimination task, changes during saccade preparation at locations that are perceptually grouped with the saccade target. In Experiment 1, using grouping by color in a delayed-saccade task, we found no consistent spread of attention to locations that formed a perceptual group with the saccade target. However, performance depended on the side of the stimulus arrangement relative to the saccade target location, an effect we discuss with respect to attentional momentum. In Experiment 2, employing stronger perceptual grouping cues (color and motion) and an immediate-saccade task, we obtained a reliable grouping effect: Attention spread to locations that were perceptually grouped with the saccade target while saccade preparation was underway. We also replicated the side effect observed in Experiment 1. These results provide evidence that the pre-saccadic attention spreads beyond the target location along the saccade direction, and selects scene elements that—based on Gestalt criteria—are likely to belong to the same object as the saccade target.

An Analysis of the Impact of Attentional Momentum Effect on Driver’s Ability of Awareness During Night-time Driving

This study aims to demonstrate that driver’s awareness during driving at night can be improved by attentional momentum effect. Driver’s ability to be aware of pedestrians is often degraded due to the inhibition of return (hereafter, “IOR”). The IOR is the tendency that exogenous attention is suppressed toward the direction to which the driver previously referred. Previous studies have suggested that attentional momentum effect (hereafter, “AME”) can relieve the effect of IOR. For example, IOR phenomenon appears when driver’s exogenous attention is localized on roadside stores with high-illumination intensity. Focusing on the night-time driving, this study investigates the impact through a detection task based on dual-task setting. As a result, it was observed that the target detection was delayed under IOR condition, and the delay in target detection was improved under AME condition. This result supports that attentional momentum effect led to improve the driver’s ability to be aware of objects during night time driving.

The varieties of momentum-like experience.

Cognition and behavior exhibit biases consistent with future expectations, and some of these biases result in momentum-like effects and have been linked with the idea of momentum. These momentum-like effects include representational momentum, operational momentum, attentional momentum, behavioral momentum, and psychological momentum. Effects of numerous variables involving characteristics of the target, display, context, or observer on each momentum-like effect are considered, and similarities of different momentum-like effects are considered. It is suggested that representational momentum, operational momentum, and attentional momentum reflect similar or overlapping mechanisms based on a perceptual time-scale and extrapolation primarily across space, and that behavioral momentum and psychological momentum reflect similar or overlapping mechanisms based on a longer time-scale and extrapolation primarily across time. It is further suggested that all 5 forms of momentum-like effect could reflect a more general extrapolation mechanism that anticipates the future action, behavior, or outcome of a given target, person, or process. A list of properties characterizing momentum-like effects is proposed, and constraints and issues relevant to future models of momentum-like effects are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record

Forms of momentum across space: representational, operational, and attentional.

Cognition can exhibit biases consistent with future expectations, and some of these biases result in momentum-like effects and have been linked with the idea of an internalization of the effects of momentum. These momentum-like effects include representational momentum, operational momentum, and attentional momentum. Similarities and differences between these different momentum-like effects are considered. Hubbard's (2005) review of representational momentum is updated to include studies published since that review appeared, and the first full reviews of operational momentum and attentional momentum are provided. It is suggested that (1) many variables that influence one of these momentum-like effects have a similar influence on another momentum-like effect, (2) representational momentum, operational momentum, and attentional momentum reflect similar or overlapping mechanisms, and operational momentum and attentional momentum are special cases of representational momentum, and (3) representational momentum, operational momentum, and attentional momentum reflect properties of a more general spatial representation in which change or transformation of a stimulus is mapped onto motion in a spatial coordinate system.

Effects of memory instruction on attention and information processing: Further investigation of inhibition of return in item-method directed forgetting

In the item-method directed-forgetting paradigm, the magnitude of inhibition of return (IOR) is larger after an instruction to forget (F) than after an instruction to remember (R). In the present experiments, we further investigated this increased magnitude of IOR after F as compared to R memory instructions (dubbed the F > R IOR difference), in order to understand both the consequences for information processing and the purpose of the differential withdrawal of attention that results in this difference. Words were presented in one of four peripheral locations, followed by either an F or an R memory instruction. Then, a target appeared in either the same location as the previous word or one of the other locations. The results showed that the F > R IOR difference cannot be explained by attentional momentum (Exp. 1), that the spatial compatibility of the response options with target locations is not necessary for the F > R IOR difference to emerge (Exp. 2), and that the F > R IOR difference is location-specific rather than response-specific (Exp. 3). These results are consistent with the view that F > R IOR represents a bias against responding to information emanating from an unreliable source (Taylor & Fawcett, 2011).

復帰抑制と注意の慣性による促進効果

復帰抑制と注意の慣性による促進効果

Asymmetry in object substitution masking occurs relative to the direction of spatial attention shift

A sparse mask that persists beyond the duration of a target can reduce its visibility, a phenomenon called object substitution masking. Y. Jiang and M. M. Chun (2001a) found an asymmetric pattern of substitution masking such that a mask on the peripheral side of the target caused stronger substitution masking than on the central side. Assuming spatial attention was focused toward the target, the peripheral and central masks were located in the same and opposite direction of an attentional path with reference to the target in their study. We hypothesized that this asymmetric mask configuration relative to the attentional shift contributes to asymmetric substitution masking. To test this hypothesis, we conducted four experiments among which the presence or absence of the center-periphery relationship and the presence or absence of the asymmetric mask configuration were manipulated independently and orthogonally. The results suggest that asymmetric substitution masking occurs relative to the direction of spatial attention irrespective of the central-peripheral relation. We propose that the asymmetry in substitution masking might be explained by attentional momentum associated with orienting toward the target.

Asymmetry in object substitution masking occurs relative to the direction of spatial attention shift.

A sparse mask that persists beyond the duration of a target can reduce its visibility, a phenomenon called object substitution masking. Y. Jiang and M. M. Chun (2001a) found an asymmetric pattern of substitution masking such that a mask on the peripheral side of the target caused stronger substitution masking than on the central side. Assuming spatial attention was focused toward the target, the peripheral and central masks were located in the same and opposite direction of an attentional path with reference to the target in their study. We hypothesized that this asymmetric mask configuration relative to the attentional shift contributes to asymmetric substitution masking. To test this hypothesis, we conducted four experiments among which the presence or absence of the center-periphery relationship and the presence or absence of the asymmetric mask configuration were manipulated independently and orthogonally. The results suggest that asymmetric substitution masking occurs relative to the direction of spatial attention irrespective of the central-peripheral relation. We propose that the asymmetry in substitution masking might be explained by attentional momentum associated with orienting toward the target.

There’s little return for attentional momentum.

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to a delay in response time (RT) to targets appearing at a previously cued location. The prevailing view is that IOR reflects visual-motor inhibition. The "attentional momentum" account rejects this idea, and instead proposes that IOR reflects an automatic shift of attention away from the cued location resulting in slower RTs to targets presented there and speeded RTs to targets opposite the cue (an opposite facilitation effect or OFE). The drawback of this account is that J. J. Snyder, W. C. Schmidt, and A. Kingstone (2001) showed that there are few data to support the OFE, and no evidence that the OFE accounts for the IOR effect. Despite this evidence, several recent studies have promoted attentional momentum as a valid explanation for the IOR effect. Reanalysis of these recent studies and new data reveal, again, that IOR routinely occurs in the absence of the OFE, and when the OFE does occur, the IOR effect need not be present. This double dissociation invalidates attentional momentum as an explanation for the IOR effect. Extant data support an inhibitory explanation of the IOR effect.

Inhibition versus attentional momentum in cortical and collicular mechanisms of IOR

Inhibition of return (IOR)—the automatic bias against returning attention or gaze to recently visited locations—is thought to have both collicular and cortical components and has been associated with the oculomotor system. Recently, distinct IOR mechanisms have been revealed that may have collicular and cortical origins: While standard luminance stimuli cause IOR in both manual and saccadic eye movement responses, “S cone” stimuli, which are invisible to the direct collicular pathway, caused manual IOR but not saccadic IOR. However, it has not been shown that the separate mechanisms are both inhibition of return, rather than facilitation due to attentional momentum or a visual motion transient. Here, we examined this question using four target and cue locations instead of two. Inhibition at the cued location predicts that responses for all noncued locations should be similar, whereas facilitation at the location opposite the cue predicts that the perpendicular locations would be more similar to the cued location than to the opposite location. Our results conform to the former prediction for both saccadic IOR and S cone generated IOR, demonstrating that both mechanisms of IOR are indeed inhibitory.

Inhibition of return generated by voluntary saccades is independent of attentional momentum.

Summoning attention to a peripheral location, either by a peripheral cue with the eyes fixed or when a voluntary saccade is made to it and gaze is then returned to the centre, delays detection of subsequent targets at that location compared to a location in the opposite visual field. It has been proposed that oculomotor activation generates this inhibition of return (IOR). This account presupposes that the asymmetry in detection results from inhibition at the cued location rather than facilitation at the uncued location. This has been confirmed for exogenously generated IOR. However, it has not, heretofore, been confirmed for "IOR" generated by voluntary saccades. The current study investigated whether the asymmetry in target detection, elicited either by a peripheral flash or by an eye movement generated in response to a central arrowhead, reflects facilitation at the opposite location due to the path of attentional momentum. Reaction times at the cued location were slower than reaction times at the opposite or perpendicular locations, which did not differ. Opposite facilitation due to attentional momentum requires that opposite be faster than perpendicular, which was not obtained. The results were the same whether IOR was generated by an exogenous cue or by a saccade executed endogenously to a central arrow.

Attentional momentum does not underlie the inhibition of return effect.

J. Pratt, T. M. Spalek, and F. Bradshaw (1999) recently proposed that attentional momentum is the mechanism underlying the inhibition of return (IOR) effect. They suggested that momentum associated with an attentional movement away from a peripherally cued location and toward an uncued opposite location is essential and fundamental to the finding of an IOR effect. Although it is clear from the present study and from a reanalysis of data from Pratt et al. that response time can be facilitated at an uncued opposite location, this putative effect of attentional momentum is neither robust nor reliable. First, it occurs for only a minority of participants. Second, it occurs in only a subset of the cued display positions. And finally, it is uncorrelated with the occurrence of IOR. Together the data indicate that the attentional momentum hypothesis is an overgeneralization and that it does not underlie the robust and reliable IOR effect.

Attentional momentum does not underlie the inhibition of return effect.

Attentional momentum does not underlie the inhibition of return effect.

The time to detect targets at inhibited and noninhibited locations: Preliminary evidence for attentional momentum.

Inhibition of return refers to the finding that response latencies are longer for targets appearing at previously attended (cued) locations than at novel (uncued) locations. The present research was designed to examine the pattern of detection latencies that occurred for targets appearing at various uncued locations. The first 2 experiments showed that responses were fastest when the target occurred at a location directly opposite the cue. Experiment 3 showed that latencies were related to the angle between the target and the direction in which attention was being oriented. Experiments 4 and 5 showed that manipulating the direction of orientation affected inhibition of return. Overall, the results suggest that inhibition of return may be due to the difference between orienting attention to locations along the path of attention versus orienting attention to those off the path of attention. The time to detect a target appearing at a peripheral location is influenced by several factors, including the intensity of the target stimulus (e.g., Hawkins, Shafto, & Richardson, 1988) and the eccentricity of the peripheral target location (e.g., LaBerge & Brown, 1986). Another factor that has been found to have a profound influence on the time to detect a target is the manner in which attention is allocated at the time the target is presented. Posner (1980) found that response latencies to detect a peripheral target were reduced when attention was allocated to the target location just before the onset of the target. This occurred despite the fact that the observers did not move their gaze from a central fixation point and regardless of whether attention was involuntarily oriented (through the use of an abrupt-onset peripheral cue) or voluntarily oriented to a location (with a central cue indicating to which location attention should be directed). This facilitation of detection responses at attended locations has become known as attentional cuing. While examining the effects of cuing, Posner

The time to detect targets at inhibited and noninhibited locations: Preliminary evidence for attentional momentum.

The time to detect targets at inhibited and noninhibited locations: Preliminary evidence for attentional momentum.